When Judges Disregard The Law, It Sets A Bad Precedent
The prolonged incarceration of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots case has renewed debate over bail and pre-trial detention. The Supreme Court in January 2026 upheld the denial of bail to Khalid under the UAPA, finding the statutory threshold for bail was not met, while the broader debate concerns the application of established bail principles.
The prolonged incarceration and bail proceedings involving Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam have sparked debate over pre-trial detention and bail principles | File Photo
The denial of bail to those who have been incarcerated for no reason has become a frightening routine in many courts in India. Every such denial of bail sounds a death knell for basic freedoms in a society that prides itself on being modern and democratic. The supreme irony is that it is done by the very courts which, on other politically convenient occasions, make inaudible squeaks for human rights and individual freedoms that form the very foundation of our society.
Bail Denial Raises Legal Questions
Nobody keeps count anymore, but Umar Khaled and Sharjeel Imam, two highly proficient doctoral students of Delhi, slammed in jail for over six years, have been denied bail again by the Delhi High Court on spurious technical grounds. The HC refused to consider their case on parity with that of two other co-accused in the Delhi riots case who have been granted bail. The HC, which seemed determined to keep them in jail, also refused to consider the Supreme Court observation which expressed “serious reservations” about the reasoning adopted while denying bail to Khalid and Imam.
Supreme Court’s Bail Principle
Whatever the reason for the many orders over six years denying them bail, one thing is clear: the Indian judiciary has thrown to the winds its own basic formulation of granting bail as the norm. It took many years of litigation for the Supreme Court to finetune and emphasise the conditions and draw the line in denying bail. In State of Rajasthan vs Balchand (1977), the SC first observed that “bail is the rule and jail is the exemption”. The SC said that the denial of bail must be justified on valid legal grounds. In Sanjay Chandra vs CBI (2012), the court even went to the extent of observing that bail should not be denied and should not be seen as a punishment and also bail cannot be denied even if the offence is serious. Bail cannot be used as a pre-trial punishment as in the case of Khalid and Imam just because the government wants to hold them up as impaled scarecrows to serve as a warning to dissidents and academics. It is noteworthy that almost all other accused in various Delhi riots cases of 2020 have been granted bail or acquitted.
Delhi Riots Cases Under Scrutiny
Prosecution cases against the accused in the Delhi riots case have all been against minorities. One after the other these cases have been thrown out by the lower judiciary, calling some of them highly imaginary. But Khalid and Imam, who are implicated in the larger conspiracy case, have been built up as enemies of the nation in public imagination, and this has been used to justify the frequent denial of bail to them. Such rulings will have a larger bearing on bail jurisprudence. The government can pick up any political opponent and paint him as an enemy of the nation by slamming various draconian laws on him. This has to stop.
RECENT STORIES
-
-
-
-
-